Jump to content

Rick Parry- doubling down on Parachute Payments, EFL Reform, Wage Caps possibly


Recommended Posts

His comments during the suspension of football, he is doubling down it would seem.

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/efl-chairman-rick-parry-aiming-074607275.html

Will be behind a paywall, but there is a Times interview with him on this subject. This has some of it. They will apparently be reduced too due to Covid, clearly in terms of rebates or similar.

Also notable that the wage cap in the bottom 2 Leagues is gathering pace.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8462581/EFL-pressing-forward-salary-cap-plans-League-One-League-Two.html

Squad size limits in general are being looked at there- proposed limit of 20 with some allowances, for age and youth etc.

Parry though! :clapping::clap:

He's had a very good pandemic (good war, bad war), indeed. I expect the Championship will be quite a bit more complex.

Better by far than his predecessor- EFL seems in fairly safe hands here...

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Parachute payments I've always said a team should get 1 years salary for all players at the time of relegation, its then paid monthly to prevent it being splashed on players. If a player leaves their wage contribution is deducted from the amount you receive so that amount can't be used to fund a loan etc. 

An idea I've thought of and not sure if its been discussed but for squad size how about saying academy players from the club of any age don't need to be registered, so if you set a 20 player squad limit the more academy players you have in your 1st team squad the bigger it can be. Would really encourage youth development.

Salary cap is a good idea as long as its just don't think it should limit the amount per player but a general overall limit if a club wants to go and spend a load on one player let them but limits spending on other players.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hodge said:

Parachute payments I've always said a team should get 1 years salary for all players at the time of relegation, its then paid monthly to prevent it being splashed on players. If a player leaves their wage contribution is deducted from the amount you receive so that amount can't be used to fund a loan etc. 

An idea I've thought of and not sure if its been discussed but for squad size how about saying academy players from the club of any age don't need to be registered, so if you set a 20 player squad limit the more academy players you have in your 1st team squad the bigger it can be. Would really encourage youth development.

Salary cap is a good idea as long as its just don't think it should limit the amount per player but a general overall limit if a club wants to go and spend a load on one player let them but limits spending on other players.

Interesting idea. I’d go further and say ‘own academy prospects who live within x mile radius’ (perhaps 50 miles or something). 
 

That way, it stops the big clubs hoovering up all the talented kids and ensures it’s only the true, local kids. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Harry said:

Interesting idea. I’d go further and say ‘own academy prospects who live within x mile radius’ (perhaps 50 miles or something). 
 

That way, it stops the big clubs hoovering up all the talented kids and ensures it’s only the true, local kids. 

Depends how you define that, if the family move and be local they are then within that x mile radius and doesn't stop it, it wouldn't be just the big clubs who'd miss out as well, lots of clubs pick up players who don't get offered a scholarship somewhere else and would penalise them for a player they'd have had through that process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hodge said:

Parachute payments I've always said a team should get 1 years salary for all players at the time of relegation, its then paid monthly to prevent it being splashed on players. If a player leaves their wage contribution is deducted from the amount you receive so that amount can't be used to fund a loan etc. 

An idea I've thought of and not sure if its been discussed but for squad size how about saying academy players from the club of any age don't need to be registered, so if you set a 20 player squad limit the more academy players you have in your 1st team squad the bigger it can be. Would really encourage youth development.

Salary cap is a good idea as long as its just don't think it should limit the amount per player but a general overall limit if a club wants to go and spend a load on one player let them but limits spending on other players.

I Really like that idea - it would encourage more clubs to do the right thing and whilst not for everyone would eventually help the National team so win win for me 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, hodge said:

Depends how you define that, if the family move and be local they are then within that x mile radius and doesn't stop it, it wouldn't be just the big clubs who'd miss out as well, lots of clubs pick up players who don't get offered a scholarship somewhere else and would penalise them for a player they'd have had through that process.

Yeah, not where the family live AFTER joining the club. Where the kid is born/is schooled, that sort of idea. 
The other issue can be easily solved too with some sort of exemption of they’re not offered anything in their ‘radius’. 
 

Just need to find some way, any way, of stopping the poaching of kids. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Harry said:

Yeah, not where the family live AFTER joining the club. Where the kid is born/is schooled, that sort of idea. 
The other issue can be easily solved too with some sort of exemption of they’re not offered anything in their ‘radius’. 
 

Just need to find some way, any way, of stopping the poaching of kids. 

Frankly I'd introduce a quota/limit of how many players the academy can sign from other clubs, would allow for those they deemed 'the best' to move to the highest standard but otherwise local kids brought in

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Things might be moving a bit more...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8476779/Championship-clubs-eye-18m-salary-cap-vote-mooted-radical-reforms-transfer-deals.html

Some key points to pull out- I'm liking a number of ideas in it.

Quote

Under a series of proposed reforms seen by Sportsmail, the EFL are seeking to gauge support for the introduction of an £18million salary cap, with a spending tax to be imposed on clubs who breach the limit.

I'd be pretty lukewarm if that was the lot.

Quote

That would be shared out among their rivals, which would replace existing profit and sustainability rules. If the proposals developed by the Championship financial control working party gain sufficient support, the EFL will hold a formal vote at the end of the month, with a view to bringing them in before the transfer window and the start of next season.

Bit better.

Quote

Key elements include:

  • The introduction of a total squad salary cap of £18m, including all taxes, image rights and bonus fees, but with no limit on individual player salaries.
  • Deductions from the cap to be permitted for the wages of Under 21 players, any income from loan deals and payments received as a result of promotion and/or success in cup competitions.
  • A five per cent 'overrun facility' to be included allowing clubs to breach the cap by a small margin, but with a spending tax to be imposed on those who exceed the buffer. The tax would be on a sliding scale - 50p for every £1 overspend up to £600,000, £1 for every £1 from £600,000-£900,000 and £3 for every £1 over £900,000 - and the money shared equally between Championship clubs complying with the cap.
  • Special dispensation for clubs relegated from the Premier League in receipt of parachute payments, who would be permitted to register contracts they committed to prior to relegation at a divisional average wage - proposed at £720,000 a year based on a cap of £18m.
  • Maintaining a squad size of 25, in line with the Premier League, as opposed to Leagues One and Two who are considering a cut to 22 next season, 20 a year later.

I'm liking the mix of limits and redistribution- but fines can be paid easily enough, depending on the owner.  Maybe the squad size of 25 opens the door to refusing registration of very high earners e.g.

Struggling a bit with point 4 though- does that mean that their wages would only show up as £720k per season on the books- or does it mean only those with wages below and up that wouldn't affect the risk of the spending tax.

Quote

The overrun and spending tax would be policed by the EFL, with any breaches referred to an independent disciplinary commission with penalties, including points deductions, at their disposal.

Good. A mix of enforcement- hopefully it'd be in-season monitoring too and an automatic referral to the Independent Disciplinary Commission!

A bit that is an improvement on the current regs too!

Quote

Points deductions would be automatic for clubs found to only have complied with the rules through deliberate non-disclosure of accurate information and/or providing misleading information.

This bit should be in there for FFP in fairness, or such conduct should have counted as an automatic breach under that- maybe regs were not enforced correctly under Harvey!!

Quote

The EFL have pencilled in July 29 for a formal vote if clubs opt to take them that far, though that is not guaranteed. A number of the biggest spenders are opposed to a cap, while the PFA will fight it, as Sportsmail has reported.

PFA can **** off. If players don't like it...Gordon Taylor is long overdue being shown the door. Same old problems with the first objection however.

Quote

If the salary cap and spending tax are introduced, the existing profitability and sustainability rules would be removed, but current charges against clubs such as Sheffield Wednesday and Derby would continue and they would be punished if found guilty.

Still a few things I'm not entirely happy with or think could be tweaked but liking a lot of this!

Matt Hughes a good journo though, no doubt. Disregard the publication sometimes, just look at the journo and their credibility- or lack of.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

Salary cap a good idea on economic principles, but you know damned well there will be a thousand and one ways that certain clubs will find a way to evade it and then if they get caught out they won't be punished if they are a so called bigger club

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Med/MadHatter said:

Salary cap a good idea on economic principles, but you know damned well there will be a thousand and one ways that certain clubs will find a way to evade it and then if they get caught out they won't be punished if they are a so called bigger club

Saracens got the book thrown when they were discovered- should set a precedent IMO.

I think Parry is less scared or wary of punishing so called 'bigger clubs' than Harvey was...he's also a lot more competent!

Total wage cap...not just for players but for the club as a whole. So hiring secretaries on £20k a week- well you could but it would severely reduce the playing budget- maybe to account for total club wages it could be £25m or something, that'd help cut loopholes when including non playing staff!

I like the idea of ongoing monitoring, redistribution via a spending tax.

Automatic points deductions for deliberate non-disclosure and non-cooperation or misleading is an excellent idea tbh! Excellent. 10-15 should cover that side of it- pick a number.

Combine that with redistribution of fines based on a sliding scale and a Disciplinary Commission for the overspend.

If enforced well it could have a real dampening down effect, in time....Parry is an accountant by trade, he is vastly experienced- he was on UEFA's FFP Committee, he was the original head of the PL and CEO at Liverpool. Pretty sure he's done auditing too.

Oh yeah, Saracens.

In rugby, it's 4 points for a win and a bonus point can take this to 5. Conversely, in defeat a side can get up to two bonus points and it's 2 pts for a draw and 1 bonus point possible- I digress!

Saracens were docked 35 points. That's the equivalent of the EFL's own 21 point deduction. In addition, fined £5.6m. Doesn't sound much in football but in rugby parlance it is.

They were also subject in January or it was proposed that they would be subject to further in-season audits. In order to show that they were getting their wage bill for this season towards compliance.

Unsure if that happened but they accepted/or it was imposed on them unsure, but there was a further 70 points deducted, to make sure they would be relegated for certain! (A mid-season voted on rule change assisted with this).

That's what I call punishment. Unsure if it wipes the slate clean, or how they will be judged moving forward. Think they had to keep their trophies hidden from sight too!

Am extrapolating with some estimates here but that'd be 21 points in the first half of the season, with targets to offload in January- and by targets I mean insistence. No accounts for last season yet but the fine was equivalent to 31.23% of turnover for the group/club in 2017/18! That's the most recent accounts for them.

Future punishments will include stripping of trophies apparently. Seems Saracens were been handed an ultimatum with respect to the 2nd part of the punishment.

EFL need to find a legal way to do likewise I think.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Flames 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/07/2020 at 03:59, Mr Popodopolous said:

Things might be moving a bit more...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8476779/Championship-clubs-eye-18m-salary-cap-vote-mooted-radical-reforms-transfer-deals.html

Some key points to pull out- I'm liking a number of ideas in it.

I'd be pretty lukewarm if that was the lot.

Bit better.

I'm liking the mix of limits and redistribution- but fines can be paid easily enough, depending on the owner.  Maybe the squad size of 25 opens the door to refusing registration of very high earners e.g.

Struggling a bit with point 4 though- does that mean that their wages would only show up as £720k per season on the books- or does it mean only those with wages below and up that wouldn't affect the risk of the spending tax.

Good. A mix of enforcement- hopefully it'd be in-season monitoring too and an automatic referral to the Independent Disciplinary Commission!

A bit that is an improvement on the current regs too!

This bit should be in there for FFP in fairness, or such conduct should have counted as an automatic breach under that- maybe regs were not enforced correctly under Harvey!!

PFA can **** off. If players don't like it...Gordon Taylor is long overdue being shown the door. Same old problems with the first objection however.

Still a few things I'm not entirely happy with or think could be tweaked but liking a lot of this!

Matt Hughes a good journo though, no doubt. Disregard the publication sometimes, just look at the journo and their credibility- or lack of.

It’s not clear is it. But I guess 25 x £720k = £18m.  It seems that if you were to keep the same 25 players you wouldn’t be penalised.  But if you sell one and bring in someone on £20k / £1m, you’d only get penalised on £280k.

I guess it stops you offering bonkers contracts upon relegation.  Possibly takes the advantage of PPs away of teams coming down and signing expensive players on big contracts.

Does that makes sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/07/2020 at 20:09, Davefevs said:

It’s not clear is it. But I guess 25 x £720k = £18m.  It seems that if you were to keep the same 25 players you wouldn’t be penalised.  But if you sell one and bring in someone on £20k / £1m, you’d only get penalised on £280k.

I guess it stops you offering bonkers contracts upon relegation.  Possibly takes the advantage of PPs away of teams coming down and signing expensive players on big contracts.

Does that makes sense?

That does make some sense certainly. Negation of Parachute Payments is important!

Update anyway, sems clubs are meeting once more to try and thrash out the next steps/an agreement.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11688/12034283/championship-clubs-to-meet-over-salary-cap-proposal

PPS- the DCMS (Department of Culture, Media and Sport today), some guy linked to it or with some link to it called for the abolition of these today so I read!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't find it in any national, or even any particular number of local outlets.

Nonetheless, seems that the vote is next week .

I would suggest a transitional arrangement as opposed to planning straight in. Perhaps make the first phase 3 years ie to be judged at the end of 3 years, with allowances as things develop- or maybe stick with FFP until 2022/23 and THEN having given clubs plenty of notice including those who might come down from the PL, introduce this in full with no notable allowances or exemptions.

At the same time, just abandoning FFP would disadvantage clubs who have made significant sacrifices- I understand the imperative due to Covid but feel that the transitional arrangements tying in with an ending of FFP and a steady integration of this would be a way forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Can't find it in any national, or even any particular number of local outlets.

Nonetheless, seems that the vote is next week .

I would suggest a transitional arrangement as opposed to planning straight in. Perhaps make the first phase 3 years ie to be judged at the end of 3 years, with allowances as things develop- or maybe stick with FFP until 2022/23 and THEN having given clubs plenty of notice including those who might come down from the PL, introduce this in full with no notable allowances or exemptions.

At the same time, just abandoning FFP would disadvantage clubs who have made significant sacrifices- I understand the imperative due to Covid but feel that the transitional arrangements tying in with an ending of FFP and a steady integration of this would be a way forward.

Think the rumour was to make the next cycle 4 years with same allowances instead of 3, so £52m over 4 years....so 20/21 is T and T-1 19/20, T-2 18/19 and T-3 17/18.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Think the rumour was to make the next cycle 4 years with same allowances instead of 3, so £52m over 4 years....so 20/21 is T and T-1 19/20, T-2 18/19 and T-3 17/18.

So you're saying "get your chequebook out Lansdown and go mad" :clapping:

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mozo said:

So you're saying "get your chequebook out Lansdown and go mad" :clapping:

It’s funny because that was my initial reaction....but when you factor in most clubs start with a huge operational loss each season, and it’s only made better (less of a loss) by selling players, you then factor in lost income streams then you realise season 20/21 will be about:

  1. adjusting to reduced incomes 
  2. compensating 19/20 reduced incomes too

MA is managing expectations when he uses the word “austerity”.

The saving grace for City is:

  1. financial prudence in previous years building up contingency against FFP, even though the £25m loss of 17/18 is still included in the new proposed 4 year period.
  2.  Had we stuck to a 3 year cycle City would’ve been better off

Heres my rough estimate of 19/20s finances....pre-adjustment for Covid.

image.thumb.png.113878634f25d780d64f2b045f2c7a80.png

Essentially this season’s FFP cycle complied with easily (£23.1m vs FFP of £39m).  Even if we lost 25% of certain income streams, we’d be well inside FFP.

It gives us a decent starting point for next season 20/21.  I expect player wages to drop as we lose some higher earners relative to their replacements.  If we are paying smaller fees, then amortisation won’t increase...plus Eliasson and Diedhiou will realise “transfer profit”.  Diedhiou’s asset value is £1.325m...so headroom for good profit there minus sell on to Angers, which might be much smaller if it’s around £6m. Eliasson’s value is only £600k, so again, scope for good “transfer profit”, minus anything due to Norkopping (not Helsingborg).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Think the rumour was to make the next cycle 4 years with same allowances instead of 3, so £52m over 4 years....so 20/21 is T and T-1 19/20, T-2 18/19 and T-3 17/18.

Thanks.

I was under the assumption wage caps would replace FFP, the 4 years instead of 3- clubs would need to vote on this I am guessing.

We'll be fine either way, but I'm quite keen that clubs who are/were sailing close to the wind don't get any kind of free pass or even unwarranted temporary reprieve.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be a wage cap per league, for example:
Weekly Maximum Pay Per League.

Premier League: 30k a week

Championship: 13k a week

League 1: 6k a week

League 2: 3.5k a week

That's just a rough estimate but would certainly prevent more clubs going out of business and will prevent relegated PL teams having a massive advantage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks.

I was under the assumption wage caps would replace FFP, the 4 years instead of 3- clubs would need to vote on this I am guessing.

We'll be fine either way, but I'm quite keen that clubs who are/were sailing close to the wind don't get any kind of free pass or even unwarranted temporary reprieve.

That might be the case...vote next week iirc.

3 minutes ago, 2015 said:

I think there should be a wage cap per league, for example:
Weekly Maximum Pay Per League.

Premier League: 30k a week

Championship: 13k a week

League 1: 6k a week

League 2: 3.5k a week

That's just a rough estimate but would certainly prevent more clubs going out of business and will prevent relegated PL teams having a massive advantage.

The proposal for Championship is £18m per club (which works out at 25 man squad x £720k).

£720k is the current average Championship salary based on P11D submissions to EFL.

Current Prem average is £70k per week, so £3.6m....5 times Champ salary 😱😱😱

I think it’s safe to say Prem won’t be budging.  Champ wil, be a very interesting vote!

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It’s funny because that was my initial reaction....but when you factor in most clubs start with a huge operational loss each season, and it’s only made better (less of a loss) by selling players, you then factor in lost income streams then you realise season 20/21 will be about:

  1. adjusting to reduced incomes 
  2. compensating 19/20 reduced incomes too

MA is managing expectations when he uses the word “austerity”.

The saving grace for City is:

  1. financial prudence in previous years building up contingency against FFP, even though the £25m loss of 17/18 is still included in the new proposed 4 year period.
  2.  Had we stuck to a 3 year cycle City would’ve been better off

Heres my rough estimate of 19/20s finances....pre-adjustment for Covid.

image.thumb.png.113878634f25d780d64f2b045f2c7a80.png

Essentially this season’s FFP cycle complied with easily (£23.1m vs FFP of £39m).  Even if we lost 25% of certain income streams, we’d be well inside FFP.

It gives us a decent starting point for next season 20/21.  I expect player wages to drop as we lose some higher earners relative to their replacements.  If we are paying smaller fees, then amortisation won’t increase...plus Eliasson and Diedhiou will realise “transfer profit”.  Diedhiou’s asset value is £1.325m...so headroom for good profit there minus sell on to Angers, which might be much smaller if it’s around £6m. Eliasson’s value is only £600k, so again, scope for good “transfer profit”, minus anything due to Norkopping (not Helsingborg).

Dave, whilst I appreciate you trying to get your head around the figures, I went to the Harry Redknapp Institute of Economics and the solution you've missed is... spend big now, get promoted, then spend even more.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/06/2020 at 20:56, Lrrr said:

Parachute payments I've always said a team should get 1 years salary for all players at the time of relegation, its then paid monthly to prevent it being splashed on players. If a player leaves their wage contribution is deducted from the amount you receive so that amount can't be used to fund a loan etc. 

An idea I've thought of and not sure if its been discussed but for squad size how about saying academy players from the club of any age don't need to be registered, so if you set a 20 player squad limit the more academy players you have in your 1st team squad the bigger it can be. Would really encourage youth development.

Salary cap is a good idea as long as its just don't think it should limit the amount per player but a general overall limit if a club wants to go and spend a load on one player let them but limits spending on other players.

spot on sir (if you are a sir!)  you should have Rick Parrys job, with common sense and logic like that...

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mozo said:

Dave, whilst I appreciate you trying to get your head around the figures, I went to the Harry Redknapp Institute of Economics and the solution you've missed is... spend big now, get promoted, then spend even more.

Buy now, worry later!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mozo said:

Dave, whilst I appreciate you trying to get your head around the figures, I went to the Harry Redknapp Institute of Economics and the solution you've missed is... spend big now, get promoted, then spend even more.

Announce “Harry’s dog” from Monaco.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...